New U.S. Report Lauds Dam Breaching

by Robert McClure
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 17, 1999

Incapacitating four southeast Washington dams
would help a wide range of animals and fish, not
just the endangered salmon that are prompting
authorities to consider the controversial idea, says a
report due out today from federal biologists.

Meanwhile, another arm of the federal government
is expected to give approval today to scooping
some 23 million cubic yards of sand, silt and gravel
from the Columbia River -- a move that
environmentalists say will harm the very same
endangered fish.

Today, several federal agencies are scheduled to
release thousands of pages of documents about
how to help restore the once-prolific salmon runs of
the Columbia River and its tributary, the Snake.

Buried in the 22 appendices to the main document
is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report. It says
that of four options examined, the environment
would benefit most from punching holes in the Ice
Harbor, Lower Monumental, Lower Granite and Little
Goose dams on the Snake and letting the river flow
naturally. The report does not represent the
agency's final recommendation.

"This . . . has the greatest benefit for all fish and
wildlife," said Bill Shake, assistant regional director
of the service. "Leaving it as a reservoir system
does not provide those native species of fish and
other aquatic organisms as much benefit as a
natural riverine system."

In a natural river, plants would grow along the bank
and shelter frogs, salamanders and other creatures
eaten by fish, he said. The shallower, cooler river
would be less hospitable to squawfish, which breed
prolifically in the dammed river and eat young
salmon.

Overall, returning the river to a more natural state
would benefit a wide range of species -- from fish
fry in the water to deer on shore, Shake said.

The finding, while not an endorsement or order,
lends weight to arguments for breaching the dams
by carving holes through their earthen flanks,
leaving the supporting concrete abutments intact.

The report marks "a significant event," said Scott
Faber, director of public policy for American Rivers,
an environmental group pushing for dam breaching.

"The science is leading us further and further
toward dam removal," Faber said. "Now we need to
find a way to replace the benefits the dams provide
to us."

But businesses that are dependent on the dams --
farmers, aluminum companies, barge operators
and others -- don't see it that way.

Agricultural interests and residents along a 140-mile
stretch of the Snake fear that if the dams are
breached, making the river too shallow for barges
that carry wheat and other commodities to market at inexpensive
rates, their already reeling economy would take a nose dive.

"Someone's got to have the leadership to say we've
given dam breaching the old college try, we can't
find the benefits, and we're done with it," said Bruce
Lovelin, director of the Columbia River Alliance,
which represents dam-dependent businesses. "We
don't even have a comprehensive
(salmon-recovery) plan in place and we can't get
past bizarre notions such as dam breaching."

Corps estimates of the costs -- lost benefits of
electricity generation, irrigation and navigation, plus
the price of opening the dams -- is at least $330
million a year. Today's reports will also detail
economic benefits of the project, which proponents
call substantial.

Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service
today is expected to conditionally approve dredging
the Columbia River 8 feet deeper from the river's
mouth 106 miles east to Portland.

The deeper channel would allow bigger ships to
reach ports on the lower Columbia.

Although the project is billed as a 3-foot deepening,
authorities plan to dig and blast 5 feet deeper than
that -- "advanced maintenance dredging" to keep
the channel open for years to come, said Susan
Crisfield, an opponent who works with
Portland-based Northwest Environmental
Advocates.

Opponents tick off a long list of reasons for not
dredging the Columbia, including the re-suspension
of potentially toxic sediments that would harm
endangered salmon, among other species.

They are also angry that the Army Corps of
Engineers would blast and dig during the annual
salmon runs.

Crabbers in the Ilwaco area also are opposed, and
the Port of Astoria doesn't back the project because
some of the dredged material would be dumped
across 14 square miles of ocean fishing grounds
near the mouth of the river, Crisfield said.

"This project betrays the public trust by assaulting
our river and ocean, slapping our already ragged
economy in the face," said Peter Huhtala, director of
the Columbia Deepening Opposition Group, in
remarks prepared for a hearing last night.

The Fisheries Service acknowledges there has
been a sharp decline in the environmental quality of
the once-productive area where salt and fresh
water mix at the mouth of the Columbia.

Thirteen populations of salmon and steelhead
protected under the Endangered Species Act pass
through there each year.

The Service also says dredging would do more
environmental damage, but that the Corps of
Engineers would be required to offset it.

Over the next decade, the Corps would have to
restore about 5,000 acres of shallow-water areas
that could provide food and shelter for young
salmon as they make their long, dangerous journey
down river to the ocean.

The agency also would breach dikes on tributary
streams to open them up for salmon breeding and
would closely monitor the dredging's effect on
salmon and steelhead.

Opponents, including Indian tribes,
environmentalists and fishermen, are angry that the
Corps is moving so quickly.

Congress authorized the $196 million project,
saying the federal government would pay two-thirds
of the cost.

But unless the Corps can get other federal
agencies to sign off by Dec. 31, the project would
be delayed a year.